The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ballu @ Maate

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) against acquittal of the respondent of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The impugned judgment dated 30/8/2011 was passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 284/10.

As per the prosecution story, relations between the respondent and Ramlal (since deceased) were strained in view of the fact that wife of the respondent had eloped with Gorelal, cousin of Ramlal. On 2/2/10 at about 8-8.30 p.m., Ramlal returned from the house of respondent and told his wife that respondent had given Kerosene oil to him in the guise of liquor. After taking saline water, he again went to the house of respondent, where he started vomiting. As Ramlal''s condition deteriorated, his wife and mother brought him back to home where he fell unconscious. Thereafter, while his brother Mukesh was taking him to Hospital at Banda in a Jeep, he succumbed in the way. Respondent was also brought to District Hospital for treatment and during investigation, it was found that someone had administered Endosulphan pesticide to the respondent and Ramlal, which was also corroborated from the Forensic Science Lab report in regard to viscera of Ramlal.

Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.

The whole case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence and was doubtful. After going through all the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court holding that chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete, acquitted the respondent, as indicated above.

We agree with the finding recorded by the trial court.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question. The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.